Do you have to be a 'rule breaker' to succeed?

[AJI]

Just wanted to open a debate regarding abuse of power that seems to be endemic of UK politics/business.

Would it be a fair statement to say that in order for an individual (or an entire business) to succeed against their competition that they have to regularly break rules and often to the point of breaking law abiding rules in order they succeed to the position they desire?
(Is this just a UK thing or a worldwide thing?)

Would this be a reason as to why we see so many scandals such as phone hacking and regular politicians in the dock for the likes of ‘frauding’ the public purse, lying, tax avoidance etc. etc.

Would you say that nearly every person that has got to a high level in their big corporate business or politics has an inbuilt lack of adherence to rules?


The above is obviously slanted towards my line of thinking, but happy for others to bring the debate more ‘central’ and ‘balanced’ if they wish.

[AJS-]

It depends on the rules. I think things like phone hacking, defrauding people of money and stealing usually come back to bite you. Being a bit imaginative with taxes, taking the speed limit as a guide more than an absolute rule and other things, then it's fair game.

We have so many rules in the UK that it's not really practical to stick to them all the time, and I'm sure everyone has broken one of them at some point.


That said, I live in Thailand and they are far more accomplished rule breakers than we are. Bribery and corruption are totally endemic.

[alfaman]

No not needed. example would be my last employer : major American multinational - worlds largest business in the industry .

Highly profitable , growing and successful business in a mature sector ...squeaky clean ethically, and most colleagues totally straight forward to work with.

You don't have to be bent or unethical to succeed in business... (though there are some regional markets where local "fees" make it a bit easier to succeed ;-) )

[ewenm]

AJI said:

Just wanted to open a debate regarding abuse of power that seems to be endemic of UK politics/business.

Would it be a fair statement to say that in order for an individual (or an entire business) to succeed against their competition that they have to regularly break rules and often to the point of breaking law abiding rules in order they succeed to the position they desire?
(Is this just a UK thing or a worldwide thing?)

Would this be a reason as to why we see so many scandals such as phone hacking and regular politicians in the dock for the likes of ‘frauding’ the public purse, lying, tax avoidance etc. etc.

Would you say that nearly every person that has got to a high level in their big corporate business or politics has an inbuilt lack of adherence to rules?


The above is obviously slanted towards my line of thinking, but happy for others to bring the debate more ‘central’ and ‘balanced’ if they wish.

How many news stories do you see about successful people who have not broken any rules? Very few, but to surmise this is because such people don't exist is incorrect. Playing by the rules just isn't newsworthy.

I'd say the vast majority of successful people have played by the rules. The fact the UK media make a big thing of rule-breakeers suggests it is still seen as abnormal in the UK. If they didn't think rule-breaking was newsworthy then you might be onto something.

In essence, avoid jumping to wide conclusions from the very narrow focus of what appears in the media.

[youngsyr]

I guess it depends on your definition of "success", the reason the man on the street knows about many of history's worst characters is because they were successful by one definition or another at least for a short period.


Personally, the best sports coach I ever had use to say that "The key to success is adaptability", which doesn't mean that you have to break rules to succeed, only that a successful person will not limit themselves to a pre-defined set of rules imposed by someone else, unless they judge abiding to those rules to be critical to achieving the goal.

Consider the other extreme, which is following rules/orders regardless of your personal view of the situation, aka the "Nuremburg defence" (I [did something immoral as I] was only following orders).

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 1st May 12:49

[crankedup]

Simple isn't it? ethics and morals v money and greed. Perhaps leave out the power thing for now.

[oyster]

I think it helps to push rules to the limit to become successful in all walks of life and for all situations.
Not break them, just push them.

Having said that, are we talking rules or laws?

[AJI]

oyster said:

Having said that, are we talking rules or laws?

Rules in general.
Whether that be 'gentlemen agreement' rules, private company rules or law/legal rules.


As a percentage of politicians that have been found to have broken the law, parlimentary rules, or other rules in the wider community, how would this percentage stack up with the normal average joe public in terms of their history?

I was wondering whether we all break similar severity rules (in comparison to our daily lives) as what the politicians and big business do, or whether they realise that in order to get the upper hand over their competition that the only way without simply having more money is to become a regular rule breaker? (or even a strategic rule breaker).
Is it within the mind-set of a highly successful individual or business strategy to break rules?

I know there are also comparisons in sport..... take the 'Terry incident' in one of the recent european matches for example.

[will_]

crankedup said:

Simple isn't it? ethics and morals v money and greed. Perhaps leave out the power thing for now.

Depending on ones personal definitions, it is perfectly possible to be successful without being greedy, and make significant sums of profit whilst maintaing high ethical and moral positions. The Body Shop being a good example perhaps?

Breaking rules often does help "sucess", particularly if your competitors are being constrained by the rules that are being broken. However with such a position comes a risk of getting caught....

[jeff m2]

I've always considered the UK rules to be set to prevent most people getting wealthy/comfortable/rich.

In the States we have this Buffet buffoon telling everyone that the rich should be taxed more (dividends at ones highest rate etc) what he doesn't advertise is that his money is protected in a foundation and will not be affected.

This is a case of the already rich making sure the status quo remains with Buffet at the top and me at the bottom.

Outright fraud is of course a quick way to wealth as one is not hindered by all the silly paper work (reports and returns), also you are not collecting taxes for the gov and paying it into their account for them.

That really annoys me, before I could just write them a cheque, now the lazy barstewards need me to deposit it for them as well.

To sum up, breaking or stretching the rules helps a little, whether it is worth the risk I'm not sure, as I don't.

[supersingle]

"Great men are almost always bad men."

Not sure who's quote it is but it's true. It's not always about breaking laws/rules but more about always putting yourself first at the expense of others.

[Steve in Stoke]

alfaman said:

No not needed. example would be my last employer : major American multinational - worlds largest business in the industry .

Highly profitable , growing and successful business in a mature sector ...squeaky clean ethically, and most colleagues totally straight forward to work with.

You don't have to be bent or unethical to succeed in business... (though there are some regional markets where local "fees" make it a bit easier to succeed ;-) )

"The Spirit & The Letter" by any chance?!

I worked for a very similar company for many years, and integrity was the be all and end all of the business. Those that were caught bending or deliberately flaunting policy were dealt with swiftly but fairly, and every employee globally had to take regular refreshers on ethical and ecological business practice. There were sometimes conflicts of interests, like "facilitation fees" as you mention, but the process was very transparent at a corporate level, with a chain of responsibility and approval, or a decision to can the project if it didn't sit well with the global ethos.

That said, the business was ruthlessly efficient, and overall growth was constant. If certain marketplaces didn't meet company expectation for internal or external reasons then it was simply offloaded or wound down.

[speedy_thrills]

There is no law of nature that rewards people for being honest or ethical if that's what you mean.

If there is an inherent advantage in dishonesty then people willing to take that risk will have an advantage given the situation. However often in life there are rewards for both honesty and dishonesty so there in negligible advantage in either situation. In short there is equal probability IMO but most people still opt to be honest and ethical.

[AJS-]

speedy_thrills said:

There is no law of nature that rewards people for being honest or ethical if that's what you mean.

Not true. There's a very real reason to behave ethically towards those around you, and that is to gain trust and respect, which have significant benefits. Nearly all animals have some sort of grouping, and humans are no different. Ours are just a little more complex, and thus allow greater opportunity for appearing trust worthy while behaving deceitfully for personal gain at the expense of your apparent cohorts.

Yes there is an incentive to do so if you can get away with it, but it is quite hard to get away with it for a sustained period of time without people noticing and losing trust in you, so cutting you out of opportunities to rip them off.

[anonymous-user]

yes, the only way to suceed is to piess off the b_astards who would try to tell you what the f uck to do.

(please don't hurt me mods)

[Derek Smith]

AJS- said:

speedy_thrills said:

There is no law of nature that rewards people for being honest or ethical if that's what you mean.

Not true. There's a very real reason to behave ethically towards those around you, and that is to gain trust and respect, which have significant benefits. Nearly all animals have some sort of grouping, and humans are no different. Ours are just a little more complex, and thus allow greater opportunity for appearing trust worthy while behaving deceitfully for personal gain at the expense of your apparent cohorts.

Yes there is an incentive to do so if you can get away with it, but it is quite hard to get away with it for a sustained period of time without people noticing and losing trust in you, so cutting you out of opportunities to rip them off.

There has been some recent research that shows that being trustworty is of considerable benefit. People tend to trust you so seek you out at a business level. A friend of mine sold seat covers for Coulthaulds when they sponsored two racing teams. He said that those who negotiated with the boss of one were stunned when the boss he his word over some details and expected them to trust him on it. He was a multi-millionaire yet was honest.

I've been involved in a few investigations into corrupt practices and what has struck me is that in the main, if the people involved in the corruption had dedicated half the effort into their profession they would have been considerably richer. Some seemed to work all day and every day at being bent and would then criticise the honest ones as 'saps', the implication being that those who worked hard 9 - 5, had the respect of their colleagues, did a good job and slept easily in their beds, were somehow missing something.

I am willing to pay a premium for turstworthiness.

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How do you define successful?

[Tyrewrecker]

Derek Smith said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

How do you define successful?

Probably build business got very far within bigger businesses. Not easy to define.

[NorthernBoy]

Derek Smith said:

There has been some recent research that shows that being trustworty is of considerable benefit. People tend to trust you so seek you out at a business level..

This accords well with much experiance. For example, it seems very likely that the reason London's financial and legal businesses became so successful is, in part, down to the fact that they tended to be scrupulously honest, which made them a safe place to do business.

Unpopular though it is to say (to people who have only the tabloids and their personal fantasies on which to base their opinion), investment banking is among the most honest and ethical of businesses.

If we say that your coupon is being paid on the 10th May, then it will be paid. You won't get a sucking of the teeth and a "well, it's been the weather, you see". If there turns out to have been a badly drafted agreement, clients will generally be paid out on the most beneficial (to them) reading, and so on.

Anyone that acts outside of the spirit and letter of the law will tend to suffer.

[supersingle]

The City is corrupt to its very core. They don't need to break the rules because they make the rules to their own liking. Delivering on a contract is hardly a litmus test on honesty and integrity is it?

Off the top of my head:
High frequency trading being used to front run and skim transactions.
Manupulation of LIBOR.
Goldman Sachs execs referring to clients as "Muppets".
Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme.
MF Global missing funds.
Continued milking of private pension schemes to keep the City in pinstripes.
Goldman Sachs balance sheet fraud with Greece.

The list goes on and on. The City is a perfect example of people generally following the rules yet acting with such ruthlessness and lack of integrity as to royally screw over the rest of society for their own gain.